The Bible and Love and Christians

[Drtooth]

The original tea party was started by anti war, pro constitutionalist, anti new world order/9-11 truth/anti federal reserve patriots of the Ron Paul/Alex Jones type. I remember, as I was pretty into that stuff in the mid 2000's as a counter balance to all the left/right firebrand rhetoric at the time. This was 2005/2006/early 2007. I saw pictures from early tea party rallies, where people were demanding an end of the fed, a new 9/11 investigation, an end of imperialist wars, etc. It was a mix of paleoconservatives, patriots, Libertarians and leftists.

THEN as Obama was looking like he was going to win, we saw GOP and right wing thinktanks co-opt the "Tea Party" and completely change it into a Republican mouthpiece co-sponsored by Fox News. That's why most the Tea Partiers are only now anti government, and were pro Bush government loving people before Obama. I've always been against the government, war, wallstreet, and the megabanking cartels.
But this new Tea Party has nothing to do with the original Tea Party from a few years back and instead is being lead by the same tricksters who want to take their pensions.

That's basically all I was saying. No offense to anyone, but I really can't say I care for anything going down in the party. At the risk of being that guy, all the questions that randomly started up with Obama should have been asked under Bush. Specially the "How are we going to pay for it?" stuff. But it didn't matter what side of the aisle you were. If you didn't loves your Bush, you were silenced or marginalized. But now a Democrat is in power, and the same people who said to blindly follow your government no matter what because it is unpatriotic to do so are now saying it's unpatriotic to NOT whine about everything.

I honestly think we should start anew with a different NOT corporate funded, guided by overpaid talkers, and not media friendly group. Of course, we won't get listened to, but we'll be genuine.

There is a lot of stuff I don't care for in the party, mind you. The problem isn't we should just be anti-government, we should be anti-wall street/corporate corruption. You don't know how many supposed tea party opinions I've seen that are against Net Neutrality, for repealing the vote for anyone under 30, and all this very very UnAmerican stuff. And as anti-government as anyone is, we kinda need someone to make sure our food doesn't have too much cow feces and to make sure corporations can't merge and merge and merge into a super monopoly that kills competition, choice, and jobs.

That said, the left and old school conservatives basically want the same thing... less of OUR money going to corporations, less waste, the US getting the heck out of the Middle East... but we want completely different paths to get to that, and it ends up being a mess. Plus, I don't see how terrible finding alternatives to oil would be if it leads to us being free of the merciless talons of Arab oil.

If you want to trace Christianity being intimately tied to conservative politics, we need look no further than the "moral majority/religious right" that grew out of the 1980's and then took root in the mid 1990's during the Clinton years. It was a strategy by secular GOP strategists to bring in apolitical Christians by creating fake wedge issues to trick them into voting Republican. The Republicans and Democrats do not serve the American people, regardless what one's religion, creed or economic makeup is.

It goes further back that that. The "Moral Majority" came out of the 70's and as antithesis to the annoying hippies that sullied their own movement. People NEED to realize these polar opposites breed each other.

 

[frogboy4]

It does bother me when anyone uses "conservative" or "liberal" as dirty words. It's much more complicated than that. It also annoys me how so many politicians rail against gay equality until coming out for it once out of office.

I will admit that with all the debt recent talks on both sides it's John Boehner who makes me angry and not for the reason you'd think. He claims to be worried about spending, but has no problem diverting funds from essential programs in order to fight against issues of gay equality. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of bigotry for political gain. It's horrible, cynical and ultimately the most wasteful use of money. The greatest anti-gay bullies do come from the Republican party, however don't think that means that there aren't a slew of like-minded Democrats. Most of the country does support gay marriage and equal protection under the law. That number is growing. It is a matter of time. I just could live without the bullying from disingenuous people who should know better.

I do have a proposal for today's "separate water fountain" crowd that believes the term marriage should only be reserved for church-performed straight unions. If you want to defend "traditional marriage", whatever that really is*, then just call yours traditional marriage and leave the regular marriage term for non religious or gay unions. That extra term gives these folk the notion of superiority without actually robbing others of their rights. Win-win.

*I have found the term "traditional" to be dishonest. It's more about public perception than God-honest truth. Every marriage and every family is a little stranger than what they show to everyone else. We're unique individuals and not some factory made Stepford people! We all have our own traditions that on the surface might seem similar to others, but they're not. They're personal.

 

[Drtooth]

I will admit that with all the debt recent talks on both sides it's John Boehner who makes me angry and not for the reason you'd think. He claims to be worried about spending, but has no problem diverting funds from essential programs in order to fight against issues of gay equality. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of bigotry for political gain. It's horrible, cynical and ultimately the most wasteful use of money. The greatest anti-gay bullies do come from the Republican party, however don't think that means that there aren't a slew of like-minded Democrats.

[political]Yeah, well they also have no problem diverting funds from essential programs to insemination of horses they can profit off of... what does that say to you?[/political]

It really sucks that the Republican party has to play the religion card all the time. Again, we have the gay Log Cabin Republicans who have decried the right's inability to repeal Don't ask Don't tell. Somehow I think BOTH parties need better leadership and BOTH parties need a scene change. I think it IS possible... just it takes the dirtiest 2 words in the English language to do it... Work and Change. Shudder... I threw up in my mouth mentioning that W one...

I do have a proposal for today's "separate water fountain" crowd that believes the term marriage should only be reserved for church-performed straight unions. If you want to defend "traditional marriage", whatever that really is*, then just call yours traditional marriage and leave the regular marriage term for non religious or gay unions. That extra term gives these folk the notion of superiority without actually robbing others of their rights. Win-win.

*I have found the term "traditional" to be dishonest. It's more about public perception than God-honest truth. Every marriage and every family is a little stranger than what they show to everyone else. We're unique individuals and not some factory made Stepford people! We all have our own traditions that on the surface might seem similar to others, but they're not. They're personal.

I'm saying this only as my "alien that finds humans idiotic and fascinating at the same time" point of view... but Marriage bugs me. It's a human invented ceremony. Sure, in nature there are animals that mate for life, but the whole combined union thing seems... well, it seems almost arbitrary. I say this also as seeing all these marriages around me crumble for various reasons. Other than my parents (and they WERE dangerously close until my sister was born 20 years ago), most of the married adults I know have gotten a divorce. One in particular was a very abusive relationship and even after the divorce there was abusive phone calls that the wife was too stubborn to stop. She didn't even file a restraining order, which she SHOULD have done! And aside from that, I had a cousin who got into a relationship with this girl, and her parents were so hard core Catholic (I'm telling the truth here) they forced them to get married.

Now, it sounds bitter, I know... but I just can't buy sanctity when so many people get caught up in weird martial problems. I think it's just our society. We HAVE to get married or we're pariahs. We have to save everything for marriage, but if you never find anyone, you're stuck lonely. Marriage shouldn't be a gold standard of making it, people are different. Some people SHOULDN'T get married. They cheat, they get into fights, worst case, they get abusive... but how come their marriage is more valid that 2 people who actually are right for the commitment of spending the rest of your life with someone just because the loving couple is 2 guys?

A wise one once said, gays should be able to marry because they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

 

[Oscarfan]

Your post reminds me of one of my favorite clips from Infomania:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocIhpOYXAMI

You made a lot of the same points at the comedian in the video.

 

[frogboy4]

Your post reminds me of one of my favorite clips from Infomania:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocIhpOYXAMI

You made a lot of the same points at the comedian in the video.

I love that program!

It does show how nonsensical the argument is. I've grow tired of hearing the ignorant narcissists telling me, "I don't know what to think about the gay marriage issue so I'm against it." when it's not about them. It is today's schoolyard bullying for grownups.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I will say I don't think Christians should assume we have the monopoly on marriage. Marriage existed before Jesus was around. It existed before God revealed himself to Abraham. It's a human concept, not automatically a religious one.

 

[frogboy4]

I will say I don't think Christians should assume we have the monopoly on marriage. Marriage existed before Jesus was around. It existed before God revealed himself to Abraham. It's a human concept, not automatically a religious one.

Marriage, until recently, was a remarkably sexist institution that had nothing to do with love as we understand it today. It was more about property, lineage and social standing. The husband was rarely even expected to remain monogamous. It still is like that in many other parts of the world. The nuclear family unit as we understand it today is a relatively modern concept. That's not to say it isn't valuable. It most certainly is. But the value of Traditional American marriage of the past century or so doesn't negate the value of gay marriage. I guess that's the point. I don't even really see it as Christian arrogance as it is one of American arrogance cloaked in religion.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I guess it's like how grown ups in the '60s hated long hair, even though the Jesus and the Founding Fathers had it. People have short memories, lol.

 

[Drtooth]

Marriage, until recently, was a remarkably sexist institution that had nothing to do with love as we understand it today. It was more about property, lineage and social standing. The husband was rarely even expected to remain monogamous. It still is like that in many other parts of the world. The nuclear family unit as we understand it today is a relatively modern concept.

That's what I've been saying. It's an arbitrary ceremony that came out of property grabs and all that. It's still arbitrary. The fact that it's one of the three socially imposed pressures put on all of us when we reach a certain age... getting a job (which is something EVERYONE has to do, no exceptions) getting married and raising a family. And if you're a certain age and you haven't reached any of that, it causes such misery and pain. I'm glad my parents aren't one of the "Why can't you find someone" types. That pressure leads to BAD marriages, dysfunctional families, and inevitable divorces.

A lot of gay people are almost forced to marry the opposite sex in some severe cases to fit in with the standard normal do these three things or you're a loser and a freak.

Marriage isn't for everyone. it isn't as sacred as we would like to think it to be. But there are people who genuinely love each other and marriage and raising a family works for them. Why take that right away from people who want that because they're the same sex?

I guess it's like how grown ups in the '60s hated long hair, even though the Jesus and the Founding Fathers had it. People have short memories, lol.

I thought the founding fathers were bald because of head lice and they had to wear those powdered wigs? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[CensoredAlso]

A lot of gay people are almost forced to marry the opposite sex in some severe cases to fit in with the standard normal do these three things or you're a loser and a freak.

Ok I don't mean to be unsympathetic. I honestly don't. But no matter what pressure you feel, there is no excuse for lying to a woman and marrying her just to keep up appearances. It only spreads more pain. I get that families and society will make life difficult for you if you're not in a traditional relationship. But guess what, everyone has problems. It's still no excuse to use a woman like that. If you do, you're already a loser...

I thought the founding fathers were bald because of head lice and they had to wear those powdered wigs? Or am I thinking of something else?

Oh yeah I know, I'm mainly talking about what we would today call the "pony tails" that men had in Colonial times, hehe.